Left performism

Check out the Evolution of Trust
ncase.me/trust/

You find that those who always cooperate (tolerant) and those who always cheat (intolerant) don't win. Pacifists are losers as much as violent barbarians united only on their mutual greeds and lusts for eachothers gold and women. For a truely tolerant open society, values must be reciprocated to function. Nonreciprocal parties shouldn't be tolerated.

In most judeo-christianity, you'll find that forgiveness and tolerance functions soley on reciprocity while highlighting how sin (cheating) creates it's own punishment in game theory.

You can choose these abhorrent beliefs. The people you hate cannot choose how they were born. Fuck off and kill yourself. The sooner all you people are put into the gulags or get a bullet the better.

/r/neoliberal is that way

That is odd considering the bitchfest over Alex Jones getting banned. If it does not matter (and it really doesn't), why do they care so much? In fact, I do not buy that claim at all. We are talking about people who think that they memed Donald Trump into office. Da gubbermint taking away their memes would rob them of all of their imagined power. I suspect, rather, that the aut-right imagines deplatforming to be an existential threat.

Now, if we are talking about the common "conservative" liberals as the "right," then I can certainly agree that they do not see a real threat in deplatforming. They think that since their candidates get elected half the time their ballots must be worth something. SJWs denying them the right to post YouTube videos or gather at demonstrations that they never get seriously involved in are surely not seen as real threats by "conservatives."

A curious quality of identities is that most of their defining characteristics are decided upon by the very people who hate them. SJWs create the fascist identity every bit as much as fascists create the SJW identity. Zig Forums is nothing without tumblr.

Missing from that equation is the manner by which people are informed of terrorist activity. They see "muslim" terrorists or "white supremacist" terrorists or "anti-abortion" terrorists, as though it were the particular fantasies that made them deranged rather than their derangement producing their fantasies. It is the madness that is their common denominator. Cho Seung-Hui became a killer for the same reasons that Anders Breivik did–he was insane.

Of course, addressing the issue from that angle brings up questions to which certain people do not want answers to. Why are there so many insane people running about? Is a police state really necessary to protect us from them? Does it even help at all? Also, identitarians greatly prefer that the issue by treated as one of identities. "See," the Zig Forumstard says, "All these muslim terrorosts prove that the races really cannot coexist." Likewise, the SJW screams, "Most of the terrorists are problematic cis-het white males! We told you that their devisive language breeds hatred and violence." That useless framing simultaneously reinforces both of their world views and obscures the truth of the matter.

Even worse for leftists, asymetrical warfare gets lumped in with terrorism. It serves as the pretext under which Erdogan persecutes the Kurdish rebels. Those who control the narrative determine what is and is not terrorism, and thus Harris and Clebold get grouped with the PKK.

By calling this a paradox, Pooper is high-key trying to make it look bad.

Ask yourself, why do people hate? It is anger and disdain over a perceived problem. No one who wants fascism just woke up one day and decided they disliked minorities. It is always proximity to those who are different that is correlated with hatred, because the problems are generated by the close proximity. E.g. being around blacks will make you like them less than being far away from them, where their inherent differences from you are not experience in the day-to-day life.

For all the talk of "deconstructing racism", little action is truly taken by leftists to understand WHY different people get mad other each other. I can give you one example about different races smelling different to each other. Indians smell like curry, and this seems weird to european people. However, european people smell like rotting meat to indians. The way our noses are genetically wired makes it so that we "stink" towards one another. The only way you could possibly stop this phenomenon is if every last humanbeing on earth had the exact same hormones, skin oils, and noses as one another. If a european and an indian are roommates, both will be disgusted at how the apartment smells all the time. The european will find the curry smell distasteful, and the indian will find the meat smell distasteful. While this doesn't mean they'll be at each others' throats, it certainly will produce tension between the two people. There are many more elements of race that cause cultural differences and ultimately, generate disdain between both groups.

It is for this reason I have no issue with blacks like Louis Farrakhan, who preaches racial separation. In fact, many of his arguments that he makes are 100% correct. A multiracial society does not work with blacks, whites, browns, or yellows. Blacks should be able to fight for themselves and choose their own government rules, and their own cultural practices, and have their own spaces, just as whites should have as well.

Again, you're assuming that people act in perfect accordance with tactics rather than being heavily influenced by emotion. For example, there are plenty of tactical reasons to tone down the "smash the fash" nonsense, but fear and hatred drives that tactically stupid move onwards.
Zig Forums was frustrated not because of any perceived strategic loss, but because of the emotional defeat of Alex Jones getting banned. In much the same way, when people are desperate or scared, they need to "feel" victory more–anything short of waving one's flag over one's enemies is seen as a defeat or "weakness", they want to crush them totally and absolutely, not win with an unfair treaty.
For a historical example, there was once an agreement between Japan, The U.S., and Great Britain which limited the size of their respective navies to 3:5:5 if I recall correctly–it meant that for every 3 ships Japan had, Britain and the U.S.A. had 5–the Nationalist Japanese Government despised this however, because in spite of essentially limiting the U.S. navy in size and scope they got the "smaller" number and so "lost". Zig Forums sees Alex Jones' censorship as a loss when if anything it makes it look like half the inane shit he talks about is real and the elites are "scared" of him.

Of course you don't, every time I've tried explaining this to leftists, there's always some Anarchist who imagines that I'm "secretly scared" of no platforming and trying to convince you to stop using a valuable tactic.

Other than vastly overestimating your worth in the modern political landscape, you're really underestimating how much damage over-zealous anarchists "noplatforming" moderate right wingers has done to your cause. I'd say you've only been good at pushing conservatives and a few Social Democrats towards my side, while you've only appealed to hyper-partisan liberals at best.

See, through "deplatforming" you don't get rid of us or our ideas, in fact if modern society has taught us anything, it's that it's simply too difficult for heavy handed centralized stat apparatus' to destroy dedicated, ideologically motivated, and decentralized organizations.

You can't stop us, and by trying to stamp us out like a petty tyrant you only give more moral credence to our cause. I sincerely doubt you'll learn from this if only because you tried the same tactics against the Nazis back in Germany, and you fail to understand that by not changing your tactics in those last few decades you set the stage for another dictatorship–though I doubt it's one I'd truly enjoy either.

Attached: 1530680351348.jpg (738x960, 68.55K)

Interestingly enough you don't know who I hate or for what reasons, never once in this thread have I explained my ideals–instead you saw the symbol of the enemy tribe and constructed your argument against that vague ideal rather than the beliefs of the person speaking with you.

Attached: 1527280230664.jpg (1200x758, 178.89K)

They're probably an-coms, and like all anarchists, they're idealists. Just like fascists like to solve the complicated problems of economics by scapegoating some minority, anarchists love the idea of an underdog group "fighting the good fight" against some oppressor. And this childish idea requires simplistic black and white factions, so of course the victims "didn't choose" to be part of the oppressed group, but the oppressors always "choose" to be hateful, bigoted, etc. The oppressor is the antagonist who launches the plot through their actions and heroes, the oppressed, gotta fight him to restore the balance.

What these people need is an understanding of orthodox, materialistic Marxism. People of both "factions", their positions and their views are the result of their circumstances (biological, economical, cultural). Also, some Thorstein Veblen would also be helpful. His concept of conspicuous consumption explains how people do all sort of stupid things for social standing, and like you said with Twitter, liberal online bullying and even anarkiddie window smashing are forms of gaining social standing, as they're really more about the social activity than bringing about any social change.